Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos 29 July 2019 | Draft Clarifying the Unexplored Dynamics of 12-fold Round tables Visualization of patterns of sustainable discourse between 12 systemic archetypes -- / -- Introduction Round tables: system archetypes versus personality archetypes? Visualizing a 3D round table of requisite variety Distinguishing the three "dimensions" of a round table of "global" significance Dynamics of a "global table" rather than a "round table"? Indication of integrative insight engendered in a "global table" Conceptual integration via simple polyhedra and their hemipolyhedral equivalents? Contrasting 3-fold articulations relevant to dynamics of a "global table" Reframing a 12-fold pattern of discourse in 3D Global table: enabling comprehension, credibility, communicability and memorability Emergency preparedness team design and process References Introduction This exploration follows from previous concern that, despite their symbolic importance, little effort has been made to clarify the possible dynamics between people of wisdom variously configured together at an archetypal "round table". The issue is of continuing importance with respect to 12-person juries and the committees of the wise periodically convened in response to challenges of governance. There is an unexplored enthusiasm for 12-fold sets of strategic relevance, presented separately (Checklist of 12-fold Principles, Plans, Symbols and Concepts: web resources. 2011). The issue is exemplified by the minimal significance attributed to the 12 stars of the Flag of Europe -- the primary unifying symbol of Europe in a period of extended strategic crisis. Of archetypal relevance to such symbolism, the question is the nature of the dialogue "at the table" among such as: the 12 Gods of Olympus of Ancient Greek civilization the 12 Gods of the Roman Empire the 12 Apostles assembled at the Last Supper the 12 Imams as the spiritual and political successors to the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Twelver or Athna'ashariyyah branch of Shia Islam, including that of the Alawite and the Alevi sects. the 12 Tribes of Israel the 12 Knights of the Round Table of Arthurian legend the 12 Jyotirlingas (epitome of God Shiva) in Hindu Shaivism the 12 sons of Odin, as the principal Norse god Although potentially trivial, it is surprising to note the extent to which the gods of empires past are appropriated as iconic symbols of major institutions at this time, including those of the United Nations Specialized Agencies, corporations, and the military. Significant is then the fact that the relationships between those deities does not appear to have fruitfully informed the patterns of communications between those bodies of relevance to governance. Indeed, other than recognizing any "intercourse", the pattern of such divine relationships is not explored, beyond being enshrined in myth studied by disciplines with little interest in governance. Curiously the relationships between the other archetypes above is similarly not explored, despite the symbolic importance which may be accorded to them individually, as with the 12 Apostles, notably appropriated individually by religious institutions.. In this light, previous inquiry has focused on themes evident from the following titles: Eliciting a 12-fold Pattern of Generic Operational Insights: recognition of memory constraints on collective strategic comprehension (2011) Topological Clues to a Memorable 12-fold Systemic Pattern (2011) Enabling a 12-fold Pattern of Systemic Dialogue for Governance (2011) Implication of the 12 Knights in any Strategic Round Table (2014) Generic Reframing of the 12 Tribes of "Israel" (2009) 12-fold Modalities for "heavy duty" global governance? (2008) Planetary Challenge of 12-fold Strategic Marriage (2003). Most recently the question has been explored within the context of Time for Provocative Mnemonic Aids to Systemic Connectivity? (2018). The challenge is seen as fundamental to more fruitful discourse with respect to international governance (Experimental Visualization of Dynamics of the European Parliament in 3D, 2019). The following is effectively introduced by an earlier exploration (with animations) into the challenge of the comprehension of complexity for governance, as suggested by an alternative non-planar configuration of the complex plane (Comprehension of Requisite Variety via Rotation of the Complex Plane: mutually orthogonal renderings of the Mandelbrot set framing an eightfold way, 2019). In what follows, any 12-fold archetypal round-table is assumed to be indicative of a single complex plane, whatever reservations may be framed with regard to that approximation. However, rather than understanding the round-table as simply flat (as is the convention), the exploration here configures two other "tables" as complements to the first. This follows from the rotation and mutually orthogonal configuration of the complex plane, as previously explored with respect to renderings of the Mandelbrot set. Rather than being static (as is the convention), the three "tables" are then understood as rotating with respect to each other to honour and reflect the potential complexity of that dynamic. The insights from the Mandelbrot set of wider relevance were explored previously (Psycho-social Significance of the Mandelbrot Set a sustainable boundary between chaos and order. 2005) as part of an inquiry into Sustainability through the Dynamics of Strategic Dilemmas -- in the light of the coherence and visual form of the Mandelbrot set (2005). The emphasis here is on how such configurations might be visualized and animated in 3D. Use of virtual reality animations is understood as framing the possibility of imaginative discussion of the dynamics of the potentially unrecognized patterns of discourse "at the table". The approach is therefore a challenge to any assumption that emergence of consensus, within a context of requisite variety, can be adequately enabled, comprehended and communicated in 2D -- as is currently the case. Round tables: system archetypes versus personality archetypes? In noting the lack of systemic insight into the interrelationship within each of the 12-fold sets of symbolic archetypes cited above, a preliminary comment is appropriate on the two distinctive appoaches to the integrative insight they imply. System archetypes: There is a very extensive literature from a systems perspective which has engendered insight into archetypal functions of a particular kind. Wikipedia offers a very extensive List of types of system theory. This also refers to many entries on "closely related subjects", "systems related topics", and "other systems listings".Many of those insights are specifically cited in a remarkably extensive review by Walter Lee Akers (An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes, 2015). Akers identifies six "archetypes" in the light of the systems literature. The sophistication of systems studies, and the "system archetypes" variously recognized, is apparent from that review and the Wikipedia checklists. Inexplicably, such studies even include recogntion of twelve "archetypes" -- echoing the 12-fold pattern noted above (Leyla Acaroglu, Tools for Systems Thinkers: the 12 Recurring Systems Archetypes, Medium, 29 September 2017). Why? Seemingly no approach to "systems" has been able to provide the coherence for which the times would appear to call -- or rather part of the dynamic is associated with the fact that each proposal would claim to do so in some measure, according to what is held to be relevant. As noted by William Braun (The System Archetypes, 2002), there are many ways in which the archetypes can be held to interact with each other. Braun reproduces one mapping originally provided by Michael Goodman and Art Kleiner (Using the Archetype Family Tree as a Diagnostic Tool, The Systems Thinker, 1993/1994). The work was subsequently republished by Peter Senge (Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization, 1994). However there appears to be a fundamental cognitive "disconnect" from the general capacity to comprehend their implications -- contrasting strangely and unfortunately with the (intuitive) appeal -- even over centuries -- of those named above, and the cited tendency to articulate 12-fold sets of concepts, principles and strategies. It is only too evident that despite such systemic insights, it has not proved possible to render them widely comprehensible and credible, nor to bring them to bear on the challenges of global governance. Curiously the systems approach is fundamentally handicpped in addressing disagreement, whether between the archetypes or between the advocates of particular patterns of archetypes. In his review Akers usefully presents numerous systems diagrams proposed in the literature. Arguably, is there is a case for a 12-fold set of system approaches from a "meta-systems" perspective? Through the manner of their depiction these recall the electronic wiring idagrams on circuit boards. The issue which is not addressed is for whom are such diagrams meaningful and who has the inclination to develop the skill to read them? Whilst such diagrams may translate into the skill set of systems engineers, they are not renowned for being meaningful in policy environments. To clarify the challenge, the diagram from the Wikipedia entry on systems archetypes is reprodcued below, together with that on metabolic pathways. namely the linked series of checmical reactions occurring within the cells